Back 4 Blood - Left 4 Dead's spiritual successor

[Buddy Booth]

>one exception means it's every game!

Actual good games don't need the shit monetized out of them to be profitable, the whole "b-b-but we have to bake in player progression, a battle pass etc. to stay in business" spiel smells of the same kinda bullshit EA was on when they proudly announced that single-player games were dead.
These companies just keep pushing this shit because execs are constantly looking for the golden goose, a game that you release once and is profitable forever.
What I'm saying is, live service games are a scam.

 

[⋖ cørdion ⋗]

Devil's advocate: Modern gaming lives and dies with progression. Even if that is "your cards get a gold frame that other people will see". To simply join a game to play for fun and quit with no measurable progress is practically unheard of in this day and age (in multiplayer anyway). I sure as shit don't feel like booting up a single-player game with no achievements or memorable things to gain from it (ie. learning of the infamous Morrowind lore by playing through it, achievements or not).

I would've loved for this game to succeed but the fact specific skills are baked into survivors and the ginger cunt will always be melee just turned me off completely. It's like how CSGO invented roles between equal players whereas Overwatch literally gave specific heroes roles and duties. It's handholding galore.

 

[Lord of the Large Pants]

Devil's advocate: Modern gaming lives and dies with progression. Even if that is "your cards get a gold frame that other people will see". To simply join a game to play for fun and quit with no measurable progress is practically unheard of in this day and age (in multiplayer anyway). I sure as shit don't feel like booting up a single-player game with no achievements or memorable things to gain from it (ie. learning of the infamous Morrowind lore by playing through it, achievements or not).

This seems like the ultimate counter-example. Back 4 Blood died, Left 4 Dead is still kicking.

 

[ZMOT]

Actual good games don't need the shit monetized out of them to be profitable, the whole "b-b-but we have to bake in player progression, a battle pass etc. to stay in business" spiel smells of the same kinda bullshit EA was on when they proudly announced that single-player games were dead.
These companies just keep pushing this shit because execs are constantly looking for the golden goose, a game that you release once and is profitable forever.
What I'm saying is, live service games are a scam.

I never said they are good or needs all that shit, but that's what the beancounters decide, sometimes even before the first code is written; good luck getting the green light for a few millions dollars budget without it.

however good is also relative, there were plenty of good game with no or only medium success, it doesn't always reflect the money you gonna make, no matter the business model. which is in part the reason for that "low-risk see what sticks" mobile game approach and FOTM chasing.

 

[Buddy Booth]

I never said they are good or needs all that shit, but that's what the beancounters decide, sometimes even before the first code is written; good luck getting the green light for a few millions dollars budget without it.

however good is also relative, there were plenty of good game with no or only medium success, it doesn't always reflect the money you gonna make, no matter the business model. which is in part the reason for that "low-risk see what sticks" mobile game approach and FOTM chasing.

Some games are always gonna fail regardless of quality, sure, but it's not like more monetization or making a game as a service somehow lowers that risk. (and I'm mostly considering the point of view of a corporate suit here)

You gotta admit, most games as a service have been bombs, with a few exceptions. I guess you could point at Destiny as the poster child for the whole genre, and even then I'm not sure whether that playerbase is still playing because the game is good or if it's yet another case of Stockholm's syndrome. Whatever, that's my personal opinion.

I think it can all still be traced back to the golden goose I was talking about. Not only are the beancounters you refer to absolute cunts, they are also terrible at budgeting.
The newest Deus Ex games come to mind. Those games were absolutely sabotaged by Square-Enix's retarded expectations, then the studio was put to work on the Avenger's game and we all know how that turned out.

I dunno, maybe if publishers were actually competent at their jobs they wouldn't need to try and monetize the shit out of everything. ( and still suck shit and fail)

 

[ZMOT]

I dunno, maybe if publishers were actually competent at their jobs they wouldn't need to try and monetize the shit out of everything. ( and still suck shit and fail)

probably, but the main issue is the same people in charge of shit games are also in charge of shit monetization. this only gets exacerbated once they know the game is shit and try to squeeze it harder in return while there's still something to milk. give people a good game with unintrusive monetization and you'll get another genshin.

it's also not just squeenix (which are plenty retarded), most big western companies follow that trend - just look at EA, ubisoft, activision, and as shit as their games are they still have their moneymakers (fifa, cod, etc.). you won't get something like elden ring from them because their devs are shit and they want to make a quick pump & dump.

that's why I can give TRS (some) slack, but tbh they should've never tried to play in the AAA space to begin with. look at fatshark whose games are even worse and solely get carried by the warhammer brand, yet still feel the need to milk it.

 

[vertebrae]

wtf, the Risen are based?
uS-f2usPJqxdE_ll.mp4
9wWjD1VYilnr8S_2.mp4

Still the best thing to ever come out of this game